TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y does not dictate that two entities alike in all particulars, can only be considered for comparative purposes. As has been repeatedly emphasized in judicial decisions and recognized by rule making authorities, it is the functional similarity which is to be taken into account. Having regard to these, the question Nos.1 and 2 urged do not arise. Admit. The following questions of law arise for consideration: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in upholding the action of the TPO in cherry-picking comparables and considering Titagarh and Texmaco as comparable companies for undertaking benchmarking analysis of international transaction of main line (MLN) segment applying TNMM, not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ket D. Agrawal, Advs. Respondent : For the Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue. ORDER 1. This Court is of the opinion that the questions with respect to rejection of the method (CUP by the revenue authorities) does not arise. 2. Learned senior counsel for the assessee had urged that the reasons given by the ITAT cannot stand scrutiny. He urged that the assessee s reliance on the CUP method as the most appropriate method for ALP determination is justified given that the rates at which it supplies the articles in question i.e. the finished railway wagons coincide with the rate at which they are supplied to the Delhi Metro i.e. the ultimate purchaser. It was thus emphasized that CUP is the most appropriate meth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omparables and considering Titagarh and Texmaco as comparable companies for undertaking benchmarking analysis of international transaction of main line (MLN) segment applying TNMM, not appreciating that the said companies did not satisfy the test of comparability as provided in Rule 10B(2) of the Rules? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in upholding the action of the TPO in deleting the comparables proposed by the appellant, viz., Braithwaite and Bharat Wagon, (without prejudice and in response to the additional comparables selected by the TPO), completely ignoring that the same are identical in functional profile to the comparables introduced by the TPO for undertaking benchmarkin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
